Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Raguram, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to forbear the second respondent (Revenue Tahsildar, Radhapuram Circle) from initiating further proceedings pursuant to an eviction order dated 10.12.2024 passed under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The petitioner had already preferred an appeal under Section 10 of the Act on 29.12.2024 before the first respondent (District Collector/Monitoring Committee, Tirunelveli District), which was pending. The core legal issue was whether the High Court should intervene by way of mandamus when the Act itself provides a specific statutory remedy for stay of execution under Section 10-B. The court, comprising Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice A.D. Maria Clete, observed that since the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of an application for stay under Section 10-B before the appellate authority, seeking similar relief from the High Court was not justifiable. The court noted that the appeal was already pending and the petitioner could make an appropriate application under Section 10-B. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed without any order as to costs, with the observation that no interference was required.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Alternative Remedy - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, Sections 6, 10, 10-B - Petitioner challenged eviction order under Section 6 by filing appeal under Section 10 and simultaneously sought writ of mandamus to restrain enforcement pending appeal - Court held that since Section 10-B provides for stay of execution, petitioner must first avail that remedy before the appellate authority - Writ petition dismissed as not justifiable when alternative statutory remedy exists (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition for mandamus to forbear eviction proceedings is maintainable when the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of seeking stay under Section 10-B of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 before the appellate authority.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. No order as to costs. The court held that since Section 10-B of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 provides for granting stay of execution of the eviction order, and the petitioner's appeal was pending before the first respondent, it was open to the petitioner to make an appropriate application under Section 10-B. No interference was required.
Law Points
- Exhaustion of alternative remedy
- statutory stay provision
- maintainability of writ petition when statutory remedy available
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (01) 184
M.S.RAMESH, A.D.MARIA CLETE
For Petitioner: Mr.S.Palanivelayutham, For Respondents 1 to 4: Mr.J.Ashok, Additional Government Pleader
1.The District Collector / Monitoring Committee, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 2.The Revenue Tahsildar, Radhapuram Circle, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Sub Collector, Cheranmagadevi, Tirunelveli District. 4.The Block Development Officer, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to forbear the second respondent from initiating further proceedings pursuant to an eviction order under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to restrain the Revenue Tahsildar from enforcing the eviction order dated 10.12.2024 pending disposal of the appeal filed before the District Collector.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was aggrieved by the eviction order passed under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and sought to prevent its enforcement while his statutory appeal was pending.
Previous Decisions
Eviction order dated 10.12.2024 under Reference Na.Ka.A8/9174/2023 passed by the second respondent under Section 6 of the Act. Petitioner filed an appeal under Section 10 of the Act on 29.12.2024 before the first respondent, which was pending.
Issues
Whether the writ petition for mandamus to forbear eviction proceedings is maintainable when the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of seeking stay under Section 10-B of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 before the appellate authority.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the eviction order should not be enforced pending the appeal.
Respondents submitted that the Act provides a specific provision for stay under Section 10-B, which the petitioner could avail.
Ratio Decidendi
When a statute provides a specific remedy for stay of execution of an order, a party must exhaust that remedy before approaching the High Court under Article 226. The existence of an alternative statutory remedy, especially one that is efficacious, renders a writ petition for the same relief not justifiable.
Judgment Excerpts
Section 10-B of the Act itself provides for granting stay of execution of the eviction order.
When there is a specific provision under the Act to redress the grievance of the petitioner and an appeal filed by him is also pending, seeking for a similar relief before this Court may not be justifiable.
In the light of the above observations, no interference is required to the prayer sought for in the present writ petition.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition on an unspecified date. The court took up the petition for final disposal at the stage of admission by consent of both sides. The petition was dismissed on 21.01.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905: Section 6, Section 10, Section 10-B
- Constitution of India: Article 226
